Scoggins: Word is Mark Coyle wants to build Gophers men’s basketball. What does it mean for Ben Johnson?

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
62,396
Reaction score
19,236
Points
113
Per Chip:

Coyle does not make it a practice to comment publicly on a coach’s job status during the season, so I’m not certain if he has made a final decision.

However, my conversations with people connected to the athletic department have shed light on a critical piece to the puzzle: Coyle plans to be aggressive in how much of the $20.5 million in revenue-sharing gets allocated to men’s basketball.

The goal, sources say, is for men’s basketball to rank in the top third of the Big Ten in revenue-sharing, which would close the gap on competitors in name, image and likeness (NIL) distribution to players.

The Gophers desperately need more success, and more revenue generated, from men’s basketball. Coyle seems willing and determined to invest financially to jumpstart that program.

www.startribune.com

Scoggins: Word is Mark Coyle wants to build Gophers men’s basketball. What does it mean for Ben Johnson?

People connected to the University of Minnesota say the athletic director wants to invest in the program. Does the coach get to come along?
www.startribune.com www.startribune.com

Go Gophers!!
 

Every Big Ten school can choose to spend the same amount as the Gophers on MBB, in terms of revenue sharing.

Wouldn't it then just go right back to any additional NIL that third parties can muster?


Maybe it puts us higher than some Big 12 and ACC (and other conference) teams though.
 

GopherGrit said:
Every Big Ten school can choose to spend the same amount as the Gophers on MBB, in terms of revenue sharing.

Wouldn't it then just go right back to any additional NIL that third parties can muster?


Maybe it puts us higher than some Big 12 and ACC (and other conference) teams though.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Some of the issue is NIL/NCAA is still the wild west. One day you have to spend equally, next day you don't. Under the assumption that you don't have to follow title ix, every school is going to do it differently. We have hockey, some don't, other schools have elite programs in other sports that we don't. I'll take Maryland as a good example. Their football program is garbage, they have no hockey, so maybe they say forget it, we are dumping 50% into men's and women's basketball! That's going to be way different that Michigan OSU PSU who are football first.

Someone on another thread said if we dump a lot into basketball that will be an F U to the other sports. I mean sure I guess I get the concept, but that's life. I'd love for the Gophers to be dominant in every single sport, that's not feasible. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don't ever see us being a juggernaut in football and many others (sorry again) don't really matter. So to me basketball (low numbers needed to field a good team) hockey (our staple) and volleyball (huge tradition, fairly national brand) seem like the logical sports to be over the average on spending wise.
 


leib0039 said:
Yes and no. Some of the issue is NIL/NCAA is still the wild west. One day you have to spend equally, next day you don't. Under the assumption that you don't have to follow title ix, every school is going to do it differently. We have hockey, some don't, other schools have elite programs in other sports that we don't. I'll take Maryland as a good example. Their football program is garbage, they have no hockey, so maybe they say forget it, we are dumping 50% into men's and women's basketball! That's going to be way different that Michigan OSU PSU who are football first.

Someone on another thread said if we dump a lot into basketball that will be an F U to the other sports. I mean sure I guess I get the concept, but that's life. I'd love for the Gophers to be dominant in every single sport, that's not feasible. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don't ever see us being a juggernaut in football and many others (sorry again) don't really matter. So to me basketball (low numbers needed to field a good team) hockey (our staple) and volleyball (huge tradition, fairly national brand) seem like the logical sports to be over the average on spending wise.
Click to expand...
But you're not going to be spending on hockey or volleyball if you spend that. You're going to be spending big on men's bb at the expense of football, hockey, volleyball.
 




I’m not sure of the overall economics but how much do naming rights generate. Hockey and football have naming rights but not Williams Arena? Or am I wrong in this regard?
 

Bad Gopher said:
Is anyone better at reading tea leaves than I am?
Click to expand...
My gut says this is posturing for the next coaching candidate. That's a nice carrot for a coach outside the BIG or SEC.

Pay up for a proven commodity to coach the team, give him some guaranteed money to get players, and hope those two things increase the flow of NIL into the program. There would be a buzz, and the program desperately needs that.

I can't imagine doubling down on an investment that has performed so poorly over the past four years and entering Year 5 with complete fan apathy.

There's no way a logical Coyle thinks Ben Johnson will yield a better return on those TV dollars than another coach.

I'm probably wrong.
 



topos said:
My gut says this is posturing for the next coaching candidate. That's a nice carrot for a coach outside the BIG or SEC.

Pay up for a proven commodity to coach the team, give him some guaranteed money to get players, and hope those two things increase the flow of NIL into the program. There would be a buzz, and the program desperately needs that.

I can't imagine doubling down on an investment that has performed so poorly over the past four years and entering Year 5 with complete fan apathy.

There's no way a logical Coyle thinks Ben Johnson will yield a better return on those TV dollars than another coach.

I'm probably wrong.
Click to expand...
Topos, You're not wrong.
 

holereader said:
I’m not sure of the overall economics but how much do naming rights generate. Hockey and football have naming rights but not Williams Arena? Or am I wrong in this regard?
Click to expand...

Mariucci deal was 11.2 million divided over 14 years. Williams would top that but probably not by too much.
 

If he is serious, pay a coach and get the wrecking ball to replace Williams in current location. Play at Target center for a couple years
 




Bad Gopher said:
Take this for what it's worth. Not sure if "steam" is the same as inside info.

Click to expand...
At what point do we just boycott? You'd think Coyle was running the Mpls Parks & Rec with this comment. Got no money so let's just let the parks go to hell.
 





GopherGrit said:
Every Big Ten school can choose to spend the same amount as the Gophers on MBB, in terms of revenue sharing.

Wouldn't it then just go right back to any additional NIL that third parties can muster?
Click to expand...
...and of course all of the athletes in non-rev sports are gonna get their share, because they "work just as hard" and so he'll probably take from football.
 


FinnGopher said:
At what point do we just boycott? You'd think Coyle was running the Mpls Parks & Rec with this comment. Got no money so let's just let the parks go to hell.
Click to expand...
The nets will be missing at Williams along with cracks in the floor.
 

FinnGopher said:
At what point do we just boycott? You'd think Coyle was running the Mpls Parks & Rec with this comment. Got no money so let's just let the parks go to hell.
Click to expand...
Not even sure that would move the needle much. Revenue from in-game stuff is bound to be small compared to revenue sharing, I would think.
 

mngolf said:
But you're not going to be spending on hockey or volleyball if you spend that. You're going to be spending big on men's bb at the expense of football, hockey, volleyball.
Click to expand...
More at the expense of Olympic sports, baseball, and softball. About 5% is going to be spread across those sports. NIL is still going to be important.

I feel like Ben might be back and Coyle is comfortable with the product the last two seasons. Maybe he truly feels that revenue sharing is going to be the difference for the MBB program and the coach isn't the issue.
 


There's been an ongoing debate where most have said that Ben is not a very good coach. Certainly the record supports this. Others have said that he hasn't had a fair shot because we lack the NIL resources to aquire and keep talent. If he is brought back and has 5-6 million to work with, as the Scroggins article says, it should settle the debate.
 

bmb5270 said:
There's been an ongoing debate where most have said that Ben is not a very good coach. Certainly the record supports this. Others have said that he hasn't had a fair shot because we lack the NIL resources to aquire and keep talent. If he is brought back and has 5-6 million to work with, as the Scroggins article says, it should settle the debate.
Click to expand...
The money can buy better players, but how much better does the talent have to be to overcome what we've observed the last four years? How much money overcomes the desire of a player to win and reach their potential through coaching and development? Borrowing from that other thread, Wisconsin, for example, gets talent because the players are confident they'll be coached and developed and the team will win.
 


cheeseheadgophfan said:
I hope this isn't just an excuse to not fire CBJ....

"Oh look we're going to give Ben more resources so he can win. Clearly, he's elite....just read with Seth Davis says...."
Click to expand...
That's how I interpreted it, as well.

My impression is Coyle was probably leaning toward moving on from Ben, but the Gophers' surprising Big Ten win total has given him second thoughts. Perhaps now he feels the right thing to do is kick the can down the road for another season. Not what I would do, but I can understand that thought process.

One way or the other, he's got a huge decision to make on his hands.
 
Last edited:


I'm glad Coyle realizes that the program has an investment problem and not a coach problem.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom